Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

itwbennett writes "In what one expert is calling a clear message to China's tech industry that the authorities want to support a homegrown mobile operating system, China's tech regulator warns in a white paper that the country is becoming too dependent on Google's Android OS. 'Our country's mobile operating system research and development is heavily reliant on Android,' reads the white paper from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. 'Although the Android system currently remains open source, the core technologies and technology roadmap is strictly controlled by Google.'"

As someone with a Chinese tablet (Ainol Novo 7 Flame) that runs android, I can safely say 2 things-

1. They are not knockoffs. The midrange to high end Chinese tablets often have better or more features than ones pushed by big american companies. Micro-SD slots, support for 3G dongles, HDMI out, front AND rear cameras at a non-stupid price etc. Sure, there are a lot of really horrible sub-$100 chinese tablets out there. But you can get a very nice device which is on par with the Nexus 7/10 for 70-80%

Yeah!! What's not to love about a mobile OS that has all the security of the Chinese State Department? On the bright side, every back door to the system will be built there intentionally so you'll know exactly where they all are.

There's no information whatsoever on those forks. What's forky about them? Will they actually be maintained, or are they just customized builds kicked out once for a device? Does that article have any purpose other than to advertise the Nook Color and Kindle and badmouth the Chinese?

'Although the Android system currently remains open source, the core technologies and technology roadmap is strictly controlled by Google.'

Isn't the core technology actually the kernel, and strictly controlled by Linus Torvalds?

No, "core" is being used in the context of the user experience. In this context Linux is not a core technology of Android. Its just the kernel underneath that very few interact with directly. It could be replaced and few apps or users would notice or care.

Or even better - PARTICIPATE. The Android Open Source project is there for a reason.

Manufacturers who want to guide the direction Android goes technologically will work with Google - for example, Sony is a heavy contributor to AOSP. The results of this show with their newer devices, which are far more well integrated than older ones. It's a win-win situation for Sony, Google, and users in general.

But Chinese manufacturers just want to steal and not do any work. Seriously, they have stealing refined to such an art that IF YOU GIVE IT TO THEM FOR FREE THEY STILL MANAGE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO STEAL IT! (Note that nearly every Chinese handset is in noncompliance with the GPL under which the kernel is licensed. Not just halfassed pseudo-compliance like HTC and Samsung with source code that obviously doesn't match what shipped, but full on complete noncompliance with zero kernel source whatsoever.)

; Acer was completely free to release its phone with the forked OS, albeit at the cost of losing valuable third-party deals via its partnership with Google. This is how capitalism works anywhere in the world -- it has no bearing on the "openness" of the Android OS.

Oh, so you mean just like the OEMs were free to bundle Netscape or dual boot BeOS, except that their Windows license cost went up a bit? Right?

BeOS was forked to Haiku perfectly fine because it was never owned by Microsoft.

I don't see Google shutting down Kindle or Nook that use Android, but are not part of the handset alliance.

Most phone OEMS are members of Google's Android Alliance, as part of that Google works with them for updates, and they promise to keep their Android versions "on the straight and narrow path" for maximum software compatibility. Those are the only times Google throws a fit, when somebody IN the alliance breaks something to g

It's amusing because Google only 'controls the technology roadmap' because the other candidates seem to draw their software and UI dev teams directly from the same talent pool that produces ghastly shovelware to be preloaded on cheap consumer wintels. It's to the point where 'flagship device' means 'not fucked up by OEMs'...

It's honestly pretty pathetic. If anything, some of the anonymous Chinese KiRF vendors are better than the big names, since they don't have the time or money to waste on custom skins or

Well you have to install someone's OS. And right now Google is probably the most trustworthy company on the planet.

Ding! I can trust Apple, Microsoft, or Google. Google's offering is based on Linux and much of it is Open Source. The parts that aren't Open Source tell you that they're spying on you, and are optional. Does it, in fact, get any better than this?

Android is Open Source. Android is not Free Software. Open Source does not mean OSI-approved. Open Source means that you get to see the source, maybe use it internally. Don't let anyone tell you different if they didn't invent the term. They're just trying to obfuscate the situation in order to reflect their self-importance outward; meanwhile, they decrease awareness of the issues around Free Software and why it is meaningfully different from Open Source.

Isn't all of the source that is open released under an OSI-approved license?

No. Public Domain is Open Source, for example. Or really, any license that lets customers get their hands on the source. Even before I could do any kind of programming (and I do not consider myself to be a programmer just because I've taken a class in asm and can occasionally make a small fix in a C program or similar) I noticed that the shareware and freeware I downloaded sometimes came with source code and sometimes didn't. Further, it would sometimes come with all of the source code, and sometimes just s

From what i've seen it's Apache, GPL or LGPL, are there non-OSI approved ones in there too?

From what you've seen where [hyperlogos.org]? Stop letting people who didn't invent a term tell you what "Open Source" means. It means access to the source code, period the end. It doesn't tell you anything about the terms. This is why Free Software licenses are important. Open Source is an important component of Free Software, and valuable in its own right, but it is insufficient for protection of the rights of the user, which are protected by effectively using copyright to give the code itself rights.

But if you actually try to make use of that source code, Google puts a spanner in the works.

Newsflash: You can't have your cake and eat it to.

If you've made an agreement to work towards making Android the dominant mobile OS, then yeah, creating an incompatible fork is likely to get you kicked out of the OHA. If you've made no such agreement, or no longer want to be a part of the OHA, you'll have no troubles.

If you intend to use a Chinese phone you will have to trust the company even. Even if you can inspect the source there is no guarantee the binary came from it and wasn't tampered. Unless of course you intend to build it yourself and flash the phone, but even them there is no guarantee the bootloader wasn't tampered either.

That is not a problem exclusive with Chinese phones, by the way. I actually am much less worried about anything Chinese companies would put in my phone than about what American companie

Is it can be forked. But then we have the question of whether Android, the open source part, is really enough to build a phone or if only basic elements are open source, while key elements are closed or so severely controlled that they might as well be closed.

Of course the Chinese might be able to fork some of it, and the Apache licensee lets them do this without giving back. But then, given that 50% Android phones pay a tribute to MS, the Chinese government might get into trouble for being a pirate nation, unless of course they pay tribute to MS>

If ever there was a country where they could do this and run solely off of Google-like substitutes for everything from search to social to calendaring to instant messaging, it's China. The China intranet is amazing in that they've completely replicated Google and they have a population that can sustain it all in one nation. Check out the Ted Talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrcaHGqTqHk [youtube.com]

Is it can be forked. But then we have the question of whether Android, the open source part, is really enough to build a phone or if only basic elements are open source, while key elements are closed or so severely controlled that they might as well be closed.

What question? Tons of devices use just the open source part without Google's proprietary stuff. All you have to add are hardware drivers if you're using non-standard hardware, everything else you need comes open source. Only stuff like Google Play and Google Maps are close course.

Patent infringement is not the same as pirating/copyright infringement. Furthermore, the criteria for patent recognition - and indeed whether they recognise patents at all - is entirely up to the state in which said technology is being used: many countries have independent patent offices with their own criteria, which typically require individual filing to be recognised. China is quite at liberty not to recognise MS software patents and thus not pay any royalties; indeed, there are many who think that software patents are unnecessary so long as copyright/reverse engineering is prohibited and would welcome such a stance.

But then, given that 50% Android phones pay a tribute to MS, the Chinese government might get into trouble for being a pirate nation, unless of course they pay tribute to MS>

HAhahahahahahahahaha. The Chinese government might get in trouble for being a pirate nation? All they have to do is claim that they aren't involved in the government funded cloning of the technology as they currently do. In China, claims are enough...it's not like they will allow MS to come and inspect their development or their funding process. They will simply tell MS "Oh, we agree...there are just so many cloners out there that we don't know what to do!" MS will retort "You need to help us shut dow

Is it can be forked. But then we have the question of whether Android, the open source part, is really enough to build a phone or if only basic elements are open source, while key elements are closed or so severely controlled that they might as well be closed.

Is it even a question any more? I thought Cyanogen had answered that particular one years ago. The only thing the opensource Android codebase lacks is device-specific drivers, and that's going to be a perennial problem with Open Source until hardware manufacturers open up their devices. It's still an issue even with Linux - which is why most Linux machines that care about graphic performance install a close-source binary blob driver from the manufacturer.

And since it doesn't seem like it's been mentioned yet, Google can't even stop Amazon, another American company that has to follow all the US rules on copyright and patents, from making their own incredibly successful fork of Android and cutting Google out of the revenue stream entirely. Why does China, who generally takes a "look the other way" attitude even when actual copyright and patent issues are involved, feel like they need to be concerned in this case?

Not entirely true. Google initially created Android and released it as open source. But Android today is governed by the Open Handset Alliance. Several companies (including hardware ones) have a say in Android development, not just Google.

Google paid for the development of Android and then released it as open source. They try to make that money back through licenses and mobile search ads.

If you don't like it, then you're free to install a forked ROM that caters to your privacy needs, because Google released it as open source and even encourages Android fork development. And they'll be happy to sell you hardware without a locked bootloader, making it even easier to do this.

Google wants to make money, but they're giving you the tools and freed

OHA did the right thing. Essentially, Acer/Aliyun was banned because THEY were anti-openness. Acer/Aliyun wanted to go with a proprietary format where their system could run both Aliyun and Android apps, but Android systems could not run Aliyun apps. It intended to break the ecosystem, not maliciously, but it was still threatened to fragment the community and make global application access less open.

Yeah, they threatened to kick out people who worked directly against the purpose of the alliance. How unreasonable of them. Next you'll suggest that democrats who suggest adopting Randian economic practices are getting unjustly booted from the party.

yes could we not have a Bayesian filter so that these articles written in tabloid-ease "looks askance, frowns upon etc" don't get onto the front page - if your a professional you are supposed to trade up to a "proper" broadsheet paper tacky titles devalue the site.

How come China is now complaining about Android dominance and they are using window$ without any complaints

Because China knows they have Microsoft by the ball$. All they have to do is threaten to move a small part of their operations over to Linux and maybe close Microsoft's Beijing R&D office and Microsoft will give them the keys to the kingdom.

I'm guessing that what China really wants is the ability to put back doors and kill switches into communications platforms used there. Microsoft (and other businesses, like RIM) will do that For A Few Dollars More.

re: I'm guessing that what China really wants is the ability to put back doors and kill switches into communications platforms used there. Microsoft....
That seems like the most likely answer. China would definitely want central control and a centrally throwable kill switch. But China would also have to worry that some TLA from the USA might convince MS to introduce a few extra features into the mix. China would be better off building its own mash-up OS, preferably one from open source so that they coul

Explanation. Microsoft are disloyal, money grubbing sellout who would give those Communists a long, leisurely blowjob if they thought they could make a few bucks out of it. No doubt Microsoft are happy to do anything to keep the Chinese happy.

Google have higher standards, and to their credit, have told the commies to fuck off in the past.

This is why the dictators are all whiny and butthurt now. Because Google won't let them have their own way and oppress China and the world.

Secondly, you ARE right that they love Bill Gates. But that is because he has shared their source code with them, and is now willing to move a bunch of Western technology to CHina in exchange for his getting money. Pretty Sad. I am just thankful that Gates was not involved in our defense industry.

Actually, I DO have an idea. I am working on doing JUST THAT. And it is hard. BUT, I am also finding out that US prices for screws is actually CHEAPER than what I would get from the CHinese. The issue is the retailers are just going along.

Remember the expression: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" ? Well it's exactly what China continues to do. China offers hardware and we buy it and continue to do so. On the other hand, we make intellectual products and they copy them so they don't have to buy them from us. I wish we could automate more of our manufacturing so we can reduce on dependance on China and make them realise that it's a two way affair, not one way.